Dems are pretending like they have a say in the Senate impeachment proceedings and won't send over the impeachment until "at least January"

Meanwhile Cocaine Mitch is saying they won't vote on USMCA until after the impeachment trial.

WTF is wrong with these people?  And somehow these clowns keep getting re-elected.  Or maybe I have it all backwards, and they SHOULD be re-elected precisely because they don't get anything done (which is a good thing).

Also, let's not forget the 57 times or whatever it was Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare....Then they shockingly win the House, Senate and WH.....proceed to not repeal Obamacare!

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

The POTUS has been impeached. ALL power now lies in the Senate. They can go tomorrow if they choose.

The people that run congress is mind blowing.  Just imagine the people that voted for them.  We have 350,000,000 people in this country and this is the best we can get?

posted by Spock

The people that run congress is mind blowing.  Just imagine the people that voted for them.  We have 350,000,000 people in this country and this is the best we can get?

 

 

The consideration set is the problem.  You've got to be a complete egomaniac to ever try for a seat.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

The consideration set is the problem.  You've got to be a complete egomaniac to ever try for a seat.  

The only explanation I can come up with is most voters have a psychological need to choose the winner.  The reason, I think, incumbents so rarely lose is #1 people vote for the name they recognize and #2 if you know they won last time, you'll vote for them because you assume they'll win.

Obviously registered Repub/Dem comes first, but the above certainly applies in the primaries.  I'd guess being an incumbent is a huge advantage, for no other reason than voters are THAT lazy and uninformed.

posted by queencitybuckeye

The POTUS has been impeached. ALL power now lies in the Senate. They can go tomorrow if they choose.

For the Senate to complete this circular abuse of power, they should have a summary vote to dismiss the impeachment as groundless.

No evidence and no fact witnesses.  Buh-bye!  Imagine the metldowns that would trigger...

posted by gut

The only explanation I can come up with is most voters have a psychological need to choose the winner.  The reason, I think, incumbents so rarely lose is #1 people vote for the name they recognize and #2 if you know they won last time, you'll vote for them because you assume they'll win.

Obviously registered Repub/Dem comes first, but the above certainly applies in the primaries.  I'd guess being an incumbent is a huge advantage, for no other reason than voters are THAT lazy and uninformed.

Don't forget the money machine. By the time someone has a term or so in, they've already likely been bought and paid for by whatever special interests have a vested interest in them keeping their seat at the table. So unless their opponent is in or near billionaire status, they'll have a very steep uphill climb to unseat the incumbent. Particularly if they're running as the opposing party in a hardcore red or blue region or state.

In essence, that is our biggest problem with national politics. Too many career politicians on both sides who seemingly only care about pushing their party line and advocating for the groups lining their pockets. With those people being the ones holding all the cards when their seat is up for elections to the degree that, barring some huge scandal or them doing something that really erodes their support, it'll be really rough to unseat them.

posted by Spock

The people that run congress is mind blowing.  Just imagine the people that voted for them.  We have 350,000,000 people in this country and this is the best we can get?

 

 

Having a Congress, Senate and Presidency that are mainly run by egotistical blowhards, idiots whose main skill is "yes-manning" the party big-wigs, big talkers who are great at providing "fire up the base" soundbites and/or all of the above, one could say that our government is far more representative of us as a whole than we should be comfortable admitting.

posted by Heretic

Don't forget the money machine.

To be honest, I think that's a little overrated because it usually seems to balance pretty well on both sides.  A lot of your big donors give money to both sides. 

But both parties have, I think, well over $100M that they can throw into contested races around the country.  More importantly, that's where the concept of "primaried" comes into play.  If you play ball and are a good soldier, they can toss $250k to you for your primary race.  And if you raise $250k yourself, you're going to have 2-3X the money your challengers have.  If you don't play ball, that money goes to your challenger and you're toast.  The general doesn't matter, because in blue and red districts the party will easily keep the seat.

Also, if voters weren't stupid and lazy then they wouldn't be so easily influenced by campaign ads (and money would then be irrelevant).

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tulsi-gabbard-present-vote-impeachment-protest-against-party-gridlock

I like her more and more 

posted by Spock

I like her more and more 

Unfortunately, her logic/reasoning makes it more like a weasely "look at me" political stunt. 

Can't believe I actually agree with AOC for once.  If you think he's guilty of wrongdoing, then vote yes.  If you don't think it rose to the level of impeachment, then vote no.  Straddling the fence on this doesn't make you look like a leader, and that's kind of a big deal for someone running for POTUS.

I clicked on this thread thinking this would be about the massive spending that was recently passed and the facts debts and deficits do not matter any more. 

Both parties love to spend and I can't wait until the Rs rediscover their fiscal side when they are loving the spending high right now. 

That said, yeah the back and forth between the two chambers the last year plus has been pretty bad. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I clicked on this thread thinking this would be about the massive spending that was recently passed

It could and certainly is.  I only highlighted a few of the problems.

I haven't looked, but I'm guessing Trump's first 4 years will come in close to $4T in additional deficit.  Assuming a recession in a second term, and increased spending from programs from other Presidents (and also Trump's)....I'd guess the second term will run between $6-$8T.

So $10-$12T....Par for the course, but also gives you a sense of just how big Obama's $10T was.

And if the Dems sweep up, then God help us.  The Green New Deal would raise our debt/GDP ratio above Japan's in less than a decade and seriously test a lot of economic assumptions.  And before the board's chief useful idiot chimes in, we don't want the economy Japan has had for the past 25 years.  We defeated the USSR by outspending them, and we may defeat the US by outspending ourselves.

posted by gut

It could and certainly is.  I only highlighted a few of the problems.

I haven't looked, but I'm guessing Trump's first 4 years will come in close to $4T in additional deficit.  Assuming a recession in a second term, and increased spending from programs from other Presidents (and also Trump's)....I'd guess the second term will run between $6-$8T.

So $10-$12T....Par for the course, but also gives you a sense of just how big Obama's $10T was.

 

And if the Dems sweep up, then God help us.  The Green New Deal would raise our debt/GDP ratio above Japan's in less than a decade and seriously test a lot of economic assumptions.  And before the board's chief useful idiot chimes in, we don't want the economy Japan has had for the past 25 years.  We defeated the USSR by outspending them, and we may defeat the US by outspending ourselves.

Agreed. I'm no fiscal hawk myself, but the level of spending is just insane now. It's like no one cares about the debt anymore. The language used by the Dems just seems to think taxes will pay for it all on the wealthy is just a fantasy. 

It will be funny if there is a D President, with an R Senate, how the flip will switch back to fiscal hawks. But, right now, no one cares. 

posted by gut

The only explanation I can come up with is most voters have a psychological need to choose the winner.  The reason, I think, incumbents so rarely lose is #1 people vote for the name they recognize and #2 if you know they won last time, you'll vote for them because you assume they'll win.

Obviously registered Repub/Dem comes first, but the above certainly applies in the primaries.  I'd guess being an incumbent is a huge advantage, for no other reason than voters are THAT lazy and uninformed.

There's an "Us vs. Them" thing in our deep psyche that is at play here.  We naturally gravitate toward a clan we can find similarities to and then find reasons why out clan is superior to others.  It's a survival mechanism developed since man climbed out of the swamp.  Sports teams are a great example.  I think this is a big reason we vote the way we do.  Successful pols often tap into the "you and I understand each other" dynamic.  Then they can position the race as an "us against the enemy" with civilization (or at least the future of the republic at stake).  I get fired up along these lines easily and afterwards wonder what the hell happened to me.  I think it's instinctive.  Otherwise, who in the hell would want Pelosi or Trump in any fashion in their lives?

I have said for years that we need to do 3 things......

1.  Fire them ALL.  From POTUS to the Senate, to the House, all cabinet members.....

2. Institute Term Limits and re-tool how Senators & Representatives are compensated, both salary and benefits

3. Hold elections for all offices, but NO ONE who has held a seat in the Senate or the House can run.

the DNC won't let the impeachment proceedings happen until they need it to kill the campaign of the biden opponent that presents the biggest threat to their status quo. Part of me also believes that if biden is the clear frontrunner come march, that something really fishy doesn't happen and the HRC husk is wheeled out to be forced down the american throats.

Noah Feldman just dropped the nugget that Drumpf isn't even officially impeached until Nancy sends the articles across the building lol.

Oops.

posted by j_crazy

...Part of me also believes that if biden is the clear frontrunner come march, that something really fishy doesn't happen and the HRC husk is wheeled out to be forced down the american throats.

I'm expecting a brokered convention, and then Hillary will swoop in and say "hey, guys, I have a solution!"

posted by fish82

Noah Feldman just dropped the nugget that Drumpf isn't even officially impeached until Nancy sends the articles across the building lol.

Oops.

It has to happen - he can't be the first POTUS to be impeached twice without being impeached the first time!

posted by queencitybuckeye

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

 

The POTUS has been impeached. ALL power now lies in the Senate. They can go tomorrow if they choose.

No they can not. They can not have the trial until the House sends over the articles of impeachment that they voted to pass.

posted by gut

Also, let's not forget the 57 times or whatever it was Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare....Then they shockingly win the House, Senate and WH.....proceed to not repeal Obamacare!

100% with you there.